Abstract: In October 2001, I submitted a paper titled “Musings on Corporate Myths – CKO and Knowledge-Sharing in the World of Real Business” (Berner, 2001). In the paper I argued that the role of Chief Knowledge Officer CKO was “inimical” and that its creation did not suit the current organizational culture and politics in
Abstract: We often overlook the importance of an organization’s structure in supporting the implementation of a KMS. This is a very critical consideration, because an organization will undergo significant change in the shift from a knowledge-hoarding to a knowledge sharing culture. A KMS isn’t a software package that’s easily installed and then forgotten about.
Abstract: There is no right way to organize for delivery of knowledge management. Much depends on the existing structures and responsibilities that already exist within an organization. We have already considered the role of the knowledge leader. But what kind of organization does he or she need in support? We consider in turn:
Abstract: The term knowledge always implies a relation to its application, a pragmatic connotation 294. Consequently, KM cannot be centralized in an organization e.g., in analogy to the management of capital. The role of a centralized unit is only a coordinating and administrating one. Generally, the most important KM-related instruments have to be applied